Jason Sanford

Preying on the Dreams of Writers

The worst thing about being a writer is encountering all the fellow writers who have had their dreams destroyed by scammers and frauds. While these vultures exist in every field of human endevour – after all, if people can dream of something then others will find a way to rip off those dreams – the writing field is especially prone to con artists. Perhaps this is because most freelance writers lead extremely solitary lives and crave validation, making it easier for others to prey on them.

To fight back, SFWA hosts the wonderful Writer Beware site, which gifts these literary vampires with the revealing sunlight of day. The site is the brainchild of Ann Crispin and Victoria Strauss and I can't thank them enough for all they do. If I ever have a question on whether an agent or editor is trying to scam someone, their site if the first place I turn to.

However, the scammers don't like this so they are constantly harassing Ann and Victoria and anyone else who exposes their misdeeds. For more on this, check out the Writer Beware blog and the John Scalzi's great post on this subject. I hope other writers will read up on this issue and rally to the defense of Ann, Victoria, and Writer Beware.

Reading Without Meaning

Before I was a writer I was a reader. Doesn't matter if I'm reading a short story, a news article, an essay or a poem, I flat out love the act of reading. I love the way words interact with each other and spin different meanings and understandings based on how they are arranged and used. I'm also not alone in this love of reading. There are billions of people around the world with a similar love.

But lately my reading hasn't been as satisfying. The problem isn't with the traditional fiction, essays, and journalism I read. No, my problem is with many of the online news articles linked from places like Yahoo and Google News. I'm sure every reader of online news is familiar with these articles, which have eye-catching titles like "Can't Sleep? 7 Eats to Avoid" or "5 Cheapest Places To Live in America."  But once you read the articles you come away feeling unsatisfied, as if you'd eaten candy all day and forgot to ingest any actual food. These articles are often little more than lists, promising much more than they can deliver. They lack context. They lack a deeper understanding of life. They lack meaning.

I understand why this is – these articles are created by content farmers, whose only aim is to get as many eyeballs as possible clicking through their content. They don't care if their articles contribute nothing to their readers. They only care that they're good enough to work as SEO and that the big boys like Google don't call them spam.

But despite claims that search engines are cracking down on content farmers, my sense is that the content farm way of life is spreading more and more into online journalism. As one AOL writer asked his boss, “Do you guys even CARE what I write? Does it make any difference if it’s good or bad?" The answer, of course, was no.

But that "no" is extremely irritating to readers, who quickly tire of reading things which tell them nothing new and provide no deeper understanding of the subject matter. So yes, these articles may land a ton of eyeballs, but how many of those eyeballs exist under irritatingly raised eyebrows, and how many of these readers make the subtle decision to stop wasting their time with online news because of crap like this. Such a process might be slow but it can definitely happen. And it is very much a case of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

But the future promises to be even worse for online news readers.

According to the provacatively titled "Will Robots Steal Your White-Collar Job?" journalism is at risk of being AI-sourced by the new generation of intelligent computer writing programs. The article mentions the program StatSheet, which has generated "more than 15,000 articles a month and over the course of its nearly four-year lifespan, has created a million pages of news."

The program's inventor, Robbie Allen, adds that "Within the next three to four years, it will be better than what a human can produce. And the reason for that is pretty much the foundation of computation: We can analyze and access significantly more data than one person can on their own."

I have no doubt about that last point regarding data handling. But can your program provide meaning and context and the deeper understanding that readers enjoy? No.

In fact, the article where I first read about the StatSheet is a perfect example of what these types of programs – and indeed, most content farmed articles – can not do. "Will Robots Steal Your White-Collar Job?" is a short but in-depth journalistic examination of an emerging trend. The author, Brian Fung, pulls together data and original information, including original quotes from knowledgable people, and crafts all of that into an informative article which left me knowing much more than before I read it. His article is a perfect example of the insights I expect to receive when I read shorter-form journalism.

It will be interesting to see where all this goes. These types of writing programs could be useful in cranking out breaking news articles. But if they are applied to other types of journalism I expect readers will react in similar ways to how I react to content farmed articles. All these articles do is waste time and leave the reader wanting to read less, not more.

The simple truth is that if you don't love reading there is no way you can be a successful writer. The passion and committment to words can't be faked and can't be content farmed out or generated by a program. And the same is true of helping readers to see to deeper meanings and understandings.

Perhaps I'm simply being naive. Perhaps not. But I do know what I love about the act of reading. And reading farmed content – created either by humans or computers – is not what I love to read.

When You Have a Chance to Meet an Editor, Say Hello!

One of the highlights of last weekend's Context convention – aside from hanging with great people like John Scalzi, Maurice Broaddus, John Hornor Jacobs, and Jason Sizemore – was having the opportunity for a detailed discussion with David Hartwell. In case you don't know, Hartwell is a top editor with Tor Books and has decades of experience in the science fiction field. He has worked with a number of big name authors, including Philip K. Dick and Gene Wolfe (and was intimately involved in editing Wolfe's influential series The Book of the New Sun, which is one of the best literary works of the entire 20th century).

Hartwell and I sat beside each other at a "Meet the Authors" event and talked a good bit. One thing which stuck with me – and which Hartwell said I was free to share with others – was his shock at how few new writers had approached him at this convention. Considering that Context is geared toward writers, Hartwell expected a number of new authors to either pitch their novels or, if they didn't have a book ready, to at least introduce themselves. Instead, I was evidently one of the few writers he didn't personally know who engaged him in conversation.

This totally blew my mind. I mean, if you're serious about making it as a science fiction writer, why wouldn't you go up to a prominent SF editor and introduce yourself? Even if you get nervous around editors or don't have much to say, at least shake the man's hand. That way if you ever submit something to Hartwell you're not a total stranger.

As I mentioned, Context is aimed at writers, so I'm at a loss to explain why more writers didn't approach Hartwell. The only thing I can figure out is that there are a number of new authors out there who feel traditional publishing houses are not for them. One person I talked to at Context described these new authors as part of the "self-publishing subculture," which believes that to be a successful author all you need do is self-publish your book and attend conventions, where you sell copies to fellow authors who are also hawking their own self-published books.

Personally I feel that view is too dismissive of self-publishing, but it has a bit of truth. We've all met authors who believe success means selling a few dozen copies of their self-published book to friends and family. And if that's all they want, more power to them. But as a writer, I want to reach as many readers as possible. If self-publishing will do that, great. If traditional publishing will, that's also good. But no matter the route you take, one of the vital keys to writing success is to learn all you can about our industry.

Whether you want to self-publish your novel or are trying to land a traditional publishing contract, it is in every author's interest to make connections and talk with the editors in our field. And not simply because these editors might be able to help you with your career (although that is a big plus – remember, every editor out there lives for the moment when they discover a hot new writer). You see, editors are also a great source of information on what's going on in our genre and how the speculative fiction business works. This is information every author needs to know.

And to top it all off, most editors are fun people to talk to.

Yes, it would be nice if one day I'm able to submit a novel to David Hartwell and he remembers who I am. But equally as important, I had a great time talking with him. I learned a number of things about our genre I didn't know before.

So the next time you go to a con, say hello to the editors. 

Writing a Novel On Google+

I'm extremely impressed with the hangout function on Google+. Not only is it a fun way to interact with people, as a writer I've found the hangout tool to be a great productivity booster. As I've previously mentioned, the combination of chit chat with other writers and the peer-pressure to write can result in some impressive word craft.  All that remains to be seen is if the hangout feature can actually help writers be more productive over the long-term, or if the increased productivity will fizzle out as people grow weary of this social media feature.

To test this, I will write a novel while hanging out on Google+. Yes, an entire novel. I actually started working on the novel in my previous two hangouts so if this pans out that means the entire manuscript will be written while my face is webcammed across the Google+ universe.

Here's the deal: Every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday I will host a Google+ hangout at 9 pm Eastern. Any writer who is in one of my circles is welcome to take part. Starting at 9 we'll spend about 15 minutes talking shop and fumbling through that social awkwardness we writers know so well. After that we'll write for an hour. Depending on how people feel afterward, we can then follow up with more chit chat and writing.

Speaking for myself, spacing the hangouts over the week will give me time in between to do revisions and plan out the novel. However, the actual hangouts will be solely for writing. If anyone else thinks a regularly scheduled hangout will help your writing, please join in.

I'll also be posting regular updates on how this experiment goes.  And once again, thanks to Mary Robinette Kowal for coming up with the idea of these writers' hangout.

Writers' Hangouts in Google+

The other day Mary Robinette Kowal explained to the social media world how to hold a writers' hangout in Google+. Basically, you use Google+'s ability to hangout with others while also cranking on your latest literary masterpiece. Since I'm aways looking for ways to bring more fun to my writing, I staged my first hangout last night.

The results: Fun as hell and a great way to motivate yourself into being more productive.

As Mary suggested, I scheduled a time for the hookup and mentioned it on both Google+ and Twitter. Once we started the Google+ hangout functionality worked great, with people easily able to see each other and talk. In short order ten other writers--ten people being the most that can use the hangout feature at one time--logged in. We spent about 15 minutes talking and wrote for the rest of the hour, followed by more talking and writing.

Thanks to everyone who showed up, including Mary, Paolo Bacigalupi, Jamie Rubin, Janet Harriett, Patrick Thunstrom, Adam Callaway, Brian Dolton, Bryan Thomas Schmidt, Juliette Wade, Shaun Duke, Scott Roberts, and John DeNardo. I'm also pleased that the hangout helped me write almost 1,500 words last night. Since late night has always been one of my least-productive writing times, the hangout was well worth doing.

I'll be scheduling more writers' hangouts in the near future. If you want to take part, simply keep an eye out on my Google+ feed.

Update: Bryan Thomas Schmidt and Jamie Todd Rubin give their take on our hangout.

Learn the Rules of Grammar and Spelling Before You Break Them

If you want to be an author, you must know the rules of grammar and spelling. If you don't you will quickly discover your writings being dismissed on what appear to be superficial grounds. "Of course I couldn't read his story – in the first paragraph alone there were three typos, a dangling modifier, and a damn comma splice."

Is this unfair? Perhaps. But people make snap judgments every day using far less worthy ideals than proper grammar and spelling.

But all that said, once a writer has learned to work within the rules of grammer and spelling, the writer will also know when to break the rules. Read the great authors and you will find them abusing and breaking all types of grammatical requirements. You can moan all you want about these authors breaking the rules but the moaning doesn't matter – the great writers will still be great and the rules will still be the rules, except when they are broken.

I have no point in all this except that if you are going to break the rules you'd better be good enough to get away with it. And to become good enough to break something, you first must understand it.

The World's Smallest Essay on Our New Miniaturization of Literature

In the early part of this millennium, a well-known author was presented with that oft-asked and irritating question, "What advice do you have for new writers?" Her reply: "Make sure what you have to say is worth reading, because our libraries are being filled up by minutia."

* * *

According to industry statistics, more books than ever are being published, with 1,052,803 books coming out in the U.S. alone in 2009. The vast majority of these books are self-published, with ebook sales exploding while print sales remain strong.  But these massive sales numbers disguise that most of those million plus books sell only a few copies. More than ever there are a handful of best-sellers and everyone else.

Stephen King. John Grisham. Stephenie Meyer. Forget all others.

* * *

minutia (noun). A minute or minor detail.

* * *

When Ann Godoff, the respected head of the Random House Trade Group, was fired way back in 2003, it wasn't because she hadn't made money for her corporate bosses. It was because she hadn't made tons and tons of money. As the New York Times wrote at the time, "The old assumptions of book publishing — that it earned modest, steady profits built on a respected stable of authors and a deep backlist — now seem practically prehistoric."

If the old assumptions of book publishing were dying in 2003, where does that put us in our brave new world of ebooks?

I love that ebooks allow authors to keep their backlist in print. I love that ebooks empower everyone to be an author. But does everyone truly have a story to be told? Does every book deserve to remain in print forever?

* * *

Etymology of minutia:

The word comes from several Latin words including "mintiae," meaning petty details; "mintia," meaning smallness; and "mintus," meaning small. Minutia dates from around 1751 — right smack in the middle of the scientific revolution.

* * *

The old joke is that specialists learn more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing, while generalists learn less and less about more and more until they know nothing about everything.

How about another choice besides two different types of the same minutia?

* * *

The scientific revolution changed how people thought about themselves. Human knowledge became abstract. Truth could be empirically tested, proved, or disproved. The world was seen as a giant machine and could be broken down into tiny pieces.

Into minutia.

* * *

Most common advice in MFA creative writing programs: "Show, don't tell."

* * *

The world is growing smaller every day — and not in the "it's a small world after all" vision of Walt Disney or a treehugger's "we're all neighbors in an interconnected web of life." Instead, it is becoming more and more possible to find out anything about everything. Want to know if God exists? Search Amazon and you'll find a million different ebooks promising God's address on a silver platter. And if you can't Kindle a truth to your liking, Google will definitely deliver it.

Why read literature to understand the world when the truth — any truth, someone's individual truth — can be delivered instantly?

* * *

Second-most common advice in MFA programs: "Write what you know."

* * *

The scientific revolution, writ large, began with Nicolaus Copernicus saying the sun is the center of the solar system. Along the way, Isaac Newton went from apples to gravity, and later Charles Darwin evolved, Albert Einstein discovered that we are all energy, and Dr. Jonas Salk produced a polio vaccine.

That's what I know about the scientific revolution. None of it is minutia.

* * *

Thousands of major scientific and technological discoveries are announced each year.  I don't doubt that these discoveries are true or that some of them will one day change our lives. But of all the scientific and technological breakthroughs announced last year, how many did you truly understand?

Do you try to understand each new discovery and its possible impact on our world? Or do you simply nod your head and think, "That sounds absolutely marvelous. I don't understand what it means for humanity, but I'm sure someone does."

What does it portend when the scientific and technological forces shaping our lives on a daily basis are not understood by the vast majority of people?

* * *

Just as fewer and fewer people understand scientific discoveries, more and more books are being published but selling only a few copies. Is this because most of those million plus books released each year aren't worth reading, or are they simply lost in an avalanche of literary overload? Or is it some mixture of the two?

In many ways, literary success has always been a system of long odds. Want to become the next Stephen King or J. K. Rowling? Then write your book and hope the literary lottery pops up with your number. Yes, talent matters. Yes, drive and determination and craft make a difference. But it is still a roll of the dice to make a living from your writing, let alone make the best-seller lists.

As the number of self-published books and ebooks reach even higher numbers, how will this improve for the better? When we have ten million ebooks coming out each day, authors will be praying that an influential reader or critic actually reads their book, let alone praises it. They'll be endlessly promoting their beloved tale to the world, hoping against hope that the odds click and their book is suddenly on the digital road to success.

The new literary lottery is for a book to rise above the minute and tiny role it plays in a world of millions of digital editions.

* * *

One final minutia:

The well-known author from the start of the essay is not famous — her books are rarely read outside of the literary world. But writers know her, and she swears she was misquoted in her response to that oft-asked and irritating question, "What advice do you have for new writers?"

Her true response: "Make sure what you have to say is worth reading, because our libraries are being filled up by the minute."

Nothing ever really fills up. There is always room for more minutia.

* * *

Note: This is a reworking of my essay "World's Smallest Essay on the Coming Miniaturization of Literature," which came out in 2003 or so. Be sure to also read Jim Booth's response to this original essay, Literary Minutiae at the Present Time. (And yes, I'm aware that the spellings of minutiae and minutia in these essays don't match. Such is life and the preferences of different dictionaries.)